Results from kunit tests reported via dmesg may be interleaved with other
kernel messages. When parsing dmesg for modular kunit results in real
time, external tools, e.g., Intel GPU tools (IGT), may want to insert
their own test name markers into dmesg at the start of each test, before
any kernel message related to that test appears there, so existing upper
level test result parsers have no doubt which test to blame for a specific
kernel message. Unfortunately, kunit reports names of tests only at their
completion (with the exeption of a not standarized "# Subtest: <name>"
header above a test plan of each test suite or parametrized test).
External tools could be able to insert their own "start of the test"
markers with test names included if they new those names in advance.
Test names could be learned from a list if provided by a kunit test
module.
There exists a feature of listing kunit tests without actually executing
them, but it is now limited to configurations with the kunit module built
in and covers only built-in tests, already available at boot time.
Moreover, switching from list to normal mode requires reboot. If that
feature was also available when kunit is built as a module, userspace
could load the module with action=list parameter, load some kunit test
modules they are interested in and learn about the list of tests provided
by those modules, then unload them, reload the kunit module in normal mode
and execute the tests with their lists already known.
Extend kunit module notifier initialization callback with a processing
path for only listing the tests provided by a module if the kunit action
parameter is set to "list". For ease of use, submit the list in the
format of a standard KTAP report, with SKIP result from each test case,
giving "list mode" as the reason for skipping. For each test suite
provided by a kunit test module, make such list of its test cases also
available via kunit debugfs for the lifetime of the module. For user
convenience, make the kunit.action parameter visible in sysfs.
Signed-off-by: Janusz Krzysztofik <[email protected]>
---
include/kunit/test.h | 1 +
lib/kunit/executor.c | 19 +++++++++++++------
lib/kunit/test.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
3 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
index 23120d50499ef..6d693f21a4833 100644
--- a/include/kunit/test.h
+++ b/include/kunit/test.h
@@ -237,6 +237,7 @@ static inline void kunit_set_failure(struct kunit *test)
}
bool kunit_enabled(void);
+const char *kunit_action(void);
void kunit_init_test(struct kunit *test, const char *name, char *log);
diff --git a/lib/kunit/executor.c b/lib/kunit/executor.c
index 74982b83707ca..d1c0616569dfd 100644
--- a/lib/kunit/executor.c
+++ b/lib/kunit/executor.c
@@ -12,19 +12,26 @@
extern struct kunit_suite * const __kunit_suites_start[];
extern struct kunit_suite * const __kunit_suites_end[];
+static char *action_param;
+
+module_param_named(action, action_param, charp, 0400);
+MODULE_PARM_DESC(action,
+ "Changes KUnit executor behavior, valid values are:\n"
+ "<none>: run the tests like normal\n"
+ "'list' to list test names instead of running them.\n");
+
+const char *kunit_action(void)
+{
+ return action_param;
+}
+
#if IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_KUNIT)
static char *filter_glob_param;
-static char *action_param;
module_param_named(filter_glob, filter_glob_param, charp, 0);
MODULE_PARM_DESC(filter_glob,
"Filter which KUnit test suites/tests run at boot-time, e.g. list* or list*.*del_test");
-module_param_named(action, action_param, charp, 0);
-MODULE_PARM_DESC(action,
- "Changes KUnit executor behavior, valid values are:\n"
- "<none>: run the tests like normal\n"
- "'list' to list test names instead of running them.\n");
/* glob_match() needs NULL terminated strings, so we need a copy of filter_glob_param. */
struct kunit_test_filter {
diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c
index a29ca1acc4d81..413d9fd364a8d 100644
--- a/lib/kunit/test.c
+++ b/lib/kunit/test.c
@@ -674,6 +674,27 @@ int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite)
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kunit_run_tests);
+static void kunit_list_suite(struct kunit_suite *suite)
+{
+ struct kunit_case *test_case;
+
+ kunit_print_suite_start(suite);
+
+ kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case) {
+ struct kunit test = { .param_value = NULL, .param_index = 0 };
+
+ kunit_init_test(&test, test_case->name, test_case->log);
+
+ kunit_print_ok_not_ok(&test, true, KUNIT_SKIPPED,
+ kunit_test_case_num(suite, test_case),
+ test_case->name, "list mode");
+ }
+
+ kunit_print_ok_not_ok((void *)suite, false, KUNIT_SKIPPED,
+ kunit_suite_counter++,
+ suite->name, "list mode");
+}
+
static void kunit_init_suite(struct kunit_suite *suite)
{
kunit_debugfs_create_suite(suite);
@@ -688,6 +709,7 @@ bool kunit_enabled(void)
int __kunit_test_suites_init(struct kunit_suite * const * const suites, int num_suites)
{
+ const char *action = kunit_action();
unsigned int i;
if (!kunit_enabled() && num_suites > 0) {
@@ -699,7 +721,13 @@ int __kunit_test_suites_init(struct kunit_suite * const * const suites, int num_
for (i = 0; i < num_suites; i++) {
kunit_init_suite(suites[i]);
- kunit_run_tests(suites[i]);
+
+ if (!action)
+ kunit_run_tests(suites[i]);
+ else if (!strcmp(action, "list"))
+ kunit_list_suite(suites[i]);
+ else
+ pr_err("kunit: unknown action '%s'\n", action);
}
static_branch_dec(&kunit_running);
--
2.41.0
Em Mon, 31 Jul 2023 16:10:24 +0200
Janusz Krzysztofik <[email protected]> escreveu:
> Results from kunit tests reported via dmesg may be interleaved with other
> kernel messages. When parsing dmesg for modular kunit results in real
> time, external tools, e.g., Intel GPU tools (IGT), may want to insert
> their own test name markers into dmesg at the start of each test, before
> any kernel message related to that test appears there, so existing upper
> level test result parsers have no doubt which test to blame for a specific
> kernel message. Unfortunately, kunit reports names of tests only at their
> completion (with the exeption of a not standarized "# Subtest: <name>"
> header above a test plan of each test suite or parametrized test).
>
> External tools could be able to insert their own "start of the test"
> markers with test names included if they new those names in advance.
> Test names could be learned from a list if provided by a kunit test
> module.
>
> There exists a feature of listing kunit tests without actually executing
> them, but it is now limited to configurations with the kunit module built
> in and covers only built-in tests, already available at boot time.
> Moreover, switching from list to normal mode requires reboot. If that
> feature was also available when kunit is built as a module, userspace
> could load the module with action=list parameter, load some kunit test
> modules they are interested in and learn about the list of tests provided
> by those modules, then unload them, reload the kunit module in normal mode
> and execute the tests with their lists already known.
>
> Extend kunit module notifier initialization callback with a processing
> path for only listing the tests provided by a module if the kunit action
> parameter is set to "list". For ease of use, submit the list in the
> format of a standard KTAP report, with SKIP result from each test case,
> giving "list mode" as the reason for skipping. For each test suite
> provided by a kunit test module, make such list of its test cases also
> available via kunit debugfs for the lifetime of the module. For user
> convenience, make the kunit.action parameter visible in sysfs.
It sounds interesting to have a modprobe option to just list the
tests without excecuting.
>
> Signed-off-by: Janusz Krzysztofik <[email protected]>
> ---
> include/kunit/test.h | 1 +
> lib/kunit/executor.c | 19 +++++++++++++------
> lib/kunit/test.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 3 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
> index 23120d50499ef..6d693f21a4833 100644
> --- a/include/kunit/test.h
> +++ b/include/kunit/test.h
> @@ -237,6 +237,7 @@ static inline void kunit_set_failure(struct kunit *test)
> }
>
> bool kunit_enabled(void);
> +const char *kunit_action(void);
>
> void kunit_init_test(struct kunit *test, const char *name, char *log);
>
> diff --git a/lib/kunit/executor.c b/lib/kunit/executor.c
> index 74982b83707ca..d1c0616569dfd 100644
> --- a/lib/kunit/executor.c
> +++ b/lib/kunit/executor.c
> @@ -12,19 +12,26 @@
> extern struct kunit_suite * const __kunit_suites_start[];
> extern struct kunit_suite * const __kunit_suites_end[];
>
> +static char *action_param;
> +
> +module_param_named(action, action_param, charp, 0400);
> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(action,
> + "Changes KUnit executor behavior, valid values are:\n"
> + "<none>: run the tests like normal\n"
> + "'list' to list test names instead of running them.\n");
Help message sounded confusing. What about adding a boolean modprobe
parameter, like "list_tests"?
> +
> +const char *kunit_action(void)
> +{
> + return action_param;
> +}
> +
> #if IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_KUNIT)
>
> static char *filter_glob_param;
> -static char *action_param;
>
> module_param_named(filter_glob, filter_glob_param, charp, 0);
> MODULE_PARM_DESC(filter_glob,
> "Filter which KUnit test suites/tests run at boot-time, e.g. list* or list*.*del_test");
> -module_param_named(action, action_param, charp, 0);
> -MODULE_PARM_DESC(action,
> - "Changes KUnit executor behavior, valid values are:\n"
> - "<none>: run the tests like normal\n"
> - "'list' to list test names instead of running them.\n");
>
> /* glob_match() needs NULL terminated strings, so we need a copy of filter_glob_param. */
> struct kunit_test_filter {
> diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c
> index a29ca1acc4d81..413d9fd364a8d 100644
> --- a/lib/kunit/test.c
> +++ b/lib/kunit/test.c
> @@ -674,6 +674,27 @@ int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite)
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kunit_run_tests);
>
> +static void kunit_list_suite(struct kunit_suite *suite)
> +{
> + struct kunit_case *test_case;
> +
> + kunit_print_suite_start(suite);
> +
> + kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case) {
> + struct kunit test = { .param_value = NULL, .param_index = 0 };
> +
> + kunit_init_test(&test, test_case->name, test_case->log);
> +
> + kunit_print_ok_not_ok(&test, true, KUNIT_SKIPPED,
> + kunit_test_case_num(suite, test_case),
> + test_case->name, "list mode");
> + }
> +
> + kunit_print_ok_not_ok((void *)suite, false, KUNIT_SKIPPED,
> + kunit_suite_counter++,
> + suite->name, "list mode");
> +}
> +
> static void kunit_init_suite(struct kunit_suite *suite)
> {
> kunit_debugfs_create_suite(suite);
> @@ -688,6 +709,7 @@ bool kunit_enabled(void)
>
> int __kunit_test_suites_init(struct kunit_suite * const * const suites, int num_suites)
> {
> + const char *action = kunit_action();
> unsigned int i;
>
> if (!kunit_enabled() && num_suites > 0) {
> @@ -699,7 +721,13 @@ int __kunit_test_suites_init(struct kunit_suite * const * const suites, int num_
>
> for (i = 0; i < num_suites; i++) {
> kunit_init_suite(suites[i]);
> - kunit_run_tests(suites[i]);
> +
> + if (!action)
> + kunit_run_tests(suites[i]);
> + else if (!strcmp(action, "list"))
> + kunit_list_suite(suites[i]);
> + else
> + pr_err("kunit: unknown action '%s'\n", action);
> }
>
> static_branch_dec(&kunit_running);
The remaining code LGTM.
Thanks,
Mauro
Hi Mauro,
On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 15:21:20 CEST Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Mon, 31 Jul 2023 16:10:24 +0200
> Janusz Krzysztofik <[email protected]> escreveu:
>
> > Results from kunit tests reported via dmesg may be interleaved with other
> > kernel messages. When parsing dmesg for modular kunit results in real
> > time, external tools, e.g., Intel GPU tools (IGT), may want to insert
> > their own test name markers into dmesg at the start of each test, before
> > any kernel message related to that test appears there, so existing upper
> > level test result parsers have no doubt which test to blame for a specific
> > kernel message. Unfortunately, kunit reports names of tests only at their
> > completion (with the exeption of a not standarized "# Subtest: <name>"
> > header above a test plan of each test suite or parametrized test).
> >
> > External tools could be able to insert their own "start of the test"
> > markers with test names included if they new those names in advance.
> > Test names could be learned from a list if provided by a kunit test
> > module.
> >
> > There exists a feature of listing kunit tests without actually executing
> > them, but it is now limited to configurations with the kunit module built
> > in and covers only built-in tests, already available at boot time.
> > Moreover, switching from list to normal mode requires reboot. If that
> > feature was also available when kunit is built as a module, userspace
> > could load the module with action=list parameter, load some kunit test
> > modules they are interested in and learn about the list of tests provided
> > by those modules, then unload them, reload the kunit module in normal mode
> > and execute the tests with their lists already known.
> >
> > Extend kunit module notifier initialization callback with a processing
> > path for only listing the tests provided by a module if the kunit action
> > parameter is set to "list". For ease of use, submit the list in the
> > format of a standard KTAP report, with SKIP result from each test case,
> > giving "list mode" as the reason for skipping. For each test suite
> > provided by a kunit test module, make such list of its test cases also
> > available via kunit debugfs for the lifetime of the module. For user
> > convenience, make the kunit.action parameter visible in sysfs.
>
> It sounds interesting to have a modprobe option to just list the
> tests without excecuting.
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Janusz Krzysztofik <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > include/kunit/test.h | 1 +
> > lib/kunit/executor.c | 19 +++++++++++++------
> > lib/kunit/test.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > 3 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
> > index 23120d50499ef..6d693f21a4833 100644
> > --- a/include/kunit/test.h
> > +++ b/include/kunit/test.h
> > @@ -237,6 +237,7 @@ static inline void kunit_set_failure(struct kunit *test)
> > }
> >
> > bool kunit_enabled(void);
> > +const char *kunit_action(void);
> >
> > void kunit_init_test(struct kunit *test, const char *name, char *log);
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/kunit/executor.c b/lib/kunit/executor.c
> > index 74982b83707ca..d1c0616569dfd 100644
> > --- a/lib/kunit/executor.c
> > +++ b/lib/kunit/executor.c
> > @@ -12,19 +12,26 @@
> > extern struct kunit_suite * const __kunit_suites_start[];
> > extern struct kunit_suite * const __kunit_suites_end[];
> >
> > +static char *action_param;
> > +
> > +module_param_named(action, action_param, charp, 0400);
> > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(action,
> > + "Changes KUnit executor behavior, valid values are:\n"
> > + "<none>: run the tests like normal\n"
> > + "'list' to list test names instead of running them.\n");
>
> Help message sounded confusing. What about adding a boolean modprobe
> parameter, like "list_tests"?
While the above lines may look like a new code that introduced a new module
parameter at a first glance, please note that's a chunk of the existing code,
only moved out of #if IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_KUNIT) section below.
Having that clarified, do you mean adding a new module parameter that
effectively replicates the function of the existing built-in only action=list
parameter but is available also for modular kunit? Or do you mean replacing
the existing action=list parameter completely with the new one? If the latter
then that would mean a change to the existing ABI, and I'd rather not add it
to the scope of this change as not required.
Thanks,
Janusz
>
> > +
> > +const char *kunit_action(void)
> > +{
> > + return action_param;
> > +}
> > +
> > #if IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_KUNIT)
> >
> > static char *filter_glob_param;
> > -static char *action_param;
> >
> > module_param_named(filter_glob, filter_glob_param, charp, 0);
> > MODULE_PARM_DESC(filter_glob,
> > "Filter which KUnit test suites/tests run at boot-time, e.g. list* or list*.*del_test");
> > -module_param_named(action, action_param, charp, 0);
> > -MODULE_PARM_DESC(action,
> > - "Changes KUnit executor behavior, valid values are:\n"
> > - "<none>: run the tests like normal\n"
> > - "'list' to list test names instead of running them.\n");
> >
> > /* glob_match() needs NULL terminated strings, so we need a copy of filter_glob_param. */
> > struct kunit_test_filter {
> > diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c
> > index a29ca1acc4d81..413d9fd364a8d 100644
> > --- a/lib/kunit/test.c
> > +++ b/lib/kunit/test.c
> > @@ -674,6 +674,27 @@ int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite)
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kunit_run_tests);
> >
> > +static void kunit_list_suite(struct kunit_suite *suite)
> > +{
> > + struct kunit_case *test_case;
> > +
> > + kunit_print_suite_start(suite);
> > +
> > + kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case) {
> > + struct kunit test = { .param_value = NULL, .param_index = 0 };
> > +
> > + kunit_init_test(&test, test_case->name, test_case->log);
> > +
> > + kunit_print_ok_not_ok(&test, true, KUNIT_SKIPPED,
> > + kunit_test_case_num(suite, test_case),
> > + test_case->name, "list mode");
> > + }
> > +
> > + kunit_print_ok_not_ok((void *)suite, false, KUNIT_SKIPPED,
> > + kunit_suite_counter++,
> > + suite->name, "list mode");
> > +}
> > +
> > static void kunit_init_suite(struct kunit_suite *suite)
> > {
> > kunit_debugfs_create_suite(suite);
> > @@ -688,6 +709,7 @@ bool kunit_enabled(void)
> >
> > int __kunit_test_suites_init(struct kunit_suite * const * const suites, int num_suites)
> > {
> > + const char *action = kunit_action();
> > unsigned int i;
> >
> > if (!kunit_enabled() && num_suites > 0) {
> > @@ -699,7 +721,13 @@ int __kunit_test_suites_init(struct kunit_suite * const * const suites, int num_
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < num_suites; i++) {
> > kunit_init_suite(suites[i]);
> > - kunit_run_tests(suites[i]);
> > +
> > + if (!action)
> > + kunit_run_tests(suites[i]);
> > + else if (!strcmp(action, "list"))
> > + kunit_list_suite(suites[i]);
> > + else
> > + pr_err("kunit: unknown action '%s'\n", action);
> > }
> >
> > static_branch_dec(&kunit_running);
>
> The remaining code LGTM.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Mauro
>
On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 10:12 AM Janusz Krzysztofik
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Results from kunit tests reported via dmesg may be interleaved with other
> kernel messages. When parsing dmesg for modular kunit results in real
> time, external tools, e.g., Intel GPU tools (IGT), may want to insert
> their own test name markers into dmesg at the start of each test, before
> any kernel message related to that test appears there, so existing upper
> level test result parsers have no doubt which test to blame for a specific
> kernel message. Unfortunately, kunit reports names of tests only at their
> completion (with the exeption of a not standarized "# Subtest: <name>"
> header above a test plan of each test suite or parametrized test).
>
> External tools could be able to insert their own "start of the test"
> markers with test names included if they new those names in advance.
> Test names could be learned from a list if provided by a kunit test
> module.
>
> There exists a feature of listing kunit tests without actually executing
> them, but it is now limited to configurations with the kunit module built
> in and covers only built-in tests, already available at boot time.
> Moreover, switching from list to normal mode requires reboot. If that
> feature was also available when kunit is built as a module, userspace
> could load the module with action=list parameter, load some kunit test
> modules they are interested in and learn about the list of tests provided
> by those modules, then unload them, reload the kunit module in normal mode
> and execute the tests with their lists already known.
>
> Extend kunit module notifier initialization callback with a processing
> path for only listing the tests provided by a module if the kunit action
> parameter is set to "list". For ease of use, submit the list in the
> format of a standard KTAP report, with SKIP result from each test case,
> giving "list mode" as the reason for skipping. For each test suite
> provided by a kunit test module, make such list of its test cases also
> available via kunit debugfs for the lifetime of the module. For user
> convenience, make the kunit.action parameter visible in sysfs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Janusz Krzysztofik <[email protected]>
> ---
Hello!
Great idea to expose this feature to modules. But just letting you
know this patch didn't apply cleanly for me onto the current
kselftest/kunit branch. So this may need rebasing.
> include/kunit/test.h | 1 +
> lib/kunit/executor.c | 19 +++++++++++++------
> lib/kunit/test.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 3 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
> index 23120d50499ef..6d693f21a4833 100644
> --- a/include/kunit/test.h
> +++ b/include/kunit/test.h
> @@ -237,6 +237,7 @@ static inline void kunit_set_failure(struct kunit *test)
> }
>
> bool kunit_enabled(void);
> +const char *kunit_action(void);
>
> void kunit_init_test(struct kunit *test, const char *name, char *log);
>
> diff --git a/lib/kunit/executor.c b/lib/kunit/executor.c
> index 74982b83707ca..d1c0616569dfd 100644
> --- a/lib/kunit/executor.c
> +++ b/lib/kunit/executor.c
> @@ -12,19 +12,26 @@
> extern struct kunit_suite * const __kunit_suites_start[];
> extern struct kunit_suite * const __kunit_suites_end[];
>
> +static char *action_param;
> +
> +module_param_named(action, action_param, charp, 0400);
> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(action,
> + "Changes KUnit executor behavior, valid values are:\n"
> + "<none>: run the tests like normal\n"
> + "'list' to list test names instead of running them.\n");
> +
> +const char *kunit_action(void)
> +{
> + return action_param;
> +}
> +
> #if IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_KUNIT)
>
> static char *filter_glob_param;
> -static char *action_param;
>
> module_param_named(filter_glob, filter_glob_param, charp, 0);
> MODULE_PARM_DESC(filter_glob,
> "Filter which KUnit test suites/tests run at boot-time, e.g. list* or list*.*del_test");
> -module_param_named(action, action_param, charp, 0);
> -MODULE_PARM_DESC(action,
> - "Changes KUnit executor behavior, valid values are:\n"
> - "<none>: run the tests like normal\n"
> - "'list' to list test names instead of running them.\n");
>
> /* glob_match() needs NULL terminated strings, so we need a copy of filter_glob_param. */
> struct kunit_test_filter {
> diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c
> index a29ca1acc4d81..413d9fd364a8d 100644
> --- a/lib/kunit/test.c
> +++ b/lib/kunit/test.c
> @@ -674,6 +674,27 @@ int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite)
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kunit_run_tests);
>
> +static void kunit_list_suite(struct kunit_suite *suite)
> +{
> + struct kunit_case *test_case;
> +
> + kunit_print_suite_start(suite);
> +
> + kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case) {
> + struct kunit test = { .param_value = NULL, .param_index = 0 };
> +
> + kunit_init_test(&test, test_case->name, test_case->log);
> +
> + kunit_print_ok_not_ok(&test, true, KUNIT_SKIPPED,
> + kunit_test_case_num(suite, test_case),
> + test_case->name, "list mode");
> + }
> +
> + kunit_print_ok_not_ok((void *)suite, false, KUNIT_SKIPPED,
> + kunit_suite_counter++,
> + suite->name, "list mode");
> +}
> +
I have some reservations about using a different format to the current
format output when using the action_param=list option. Is it possible
to export and use the kunit_exec_list_tests() method instead? This
would allow for there to be only one method to control the format for
this option.
Also just a note that the new attributes patches introduce the
action_param.list_attr option, which would then need to be accounted
for here and maybe change some of this formatting.
Thanks!
Rae
> static void kunit_init_suite(struct kunit_suite *suite)
> {
> kunit_debugfs_create_suite(suite);
> @@ -688,6 +709,7 @@ bool kunit_enabled(void)
>
> int __kunit_test_suites_init(struct kunit_suite * const * const suites, int num_suites)
> {
> + const char *action = kunit_action();
> unsigned int i;
>
> if (!kunit_enabled() && num_suites > 0) {
> @@ -699,7 +721,13 @@ int __kunit_test_suites_init(struct kunit_suite * const * const suites, int num_
>
> for (i = 0; i < num_suites; i++) {
> kunit_init_suite(suites[i]);
> - kunit_run_tests(suites[i]);
> +
> + if (!action)
> + kunit_run_tests(suites[i]);
> + else if (!strcmp(action, "list"))
> + kunit_list_suite(suites[i]);
> + else
> + pr_err("kunit: unknown action '%s'\n", action);
> }
>
> static_branch_dec(&kunit_running);
> --
> 2.41.0
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "KUnit Development" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kunit-dev/20230731141021.2854827-7-janusz.krzysztofik%40linux.intel.com.